On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Sam Johnston <s
...@samj.net> wrote:
> *Enomaly, Inc. owns CloudCamp™ - has it jumped the shark?*
>
http://samj.net/2009/05/enomaly-inc-owns-cloudcamp-has-it.html
> So Reuven Cohen <http://www.elasticvapor.com/>'s company, Enomaly, Inc.<http://www.enomaly.com/>effectively owns CloudCamp... you heard it here first:
> <http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7biMK_kQerY/Shwp0sAM38I/AAAAAAAAAak/iIX0_0M...>
> Here's the backstory:
> As you're no doubt already aware I recently stepped up to bring CloudCamp<http://www.cloudcamp.com/>to
> Paris <http://www.cloudcamp.com/paris> on 11 June 2009, which seemed like
> a good idea at the time and a nice opportunity to kickstart the community
> over here (we already have almost 100 registrations!). You also likely
> followed my coverage of previous Enomaly-related fiascos including the CCIF
> goat rodeo<http://samj.net/2009/04/gearing-up-for-ccif-goat-rodeo-and-cc.html>and appreciate that I have a very low tolerance for bulls--t in anything I'm
> involved with (I still can't for the life of me work out why Enomaly insists
> on involving itself in this stuff rather than focusing on its fledgling
> business). What you probably don't know is that the CCIF and CloudCamp
> organisations are (or at least were to be) one and the same, were it not for
> backlash from local organisers<http://twitter.com/swardley/status/1420244526>and my premature uncovering of the ill-fated [Open]
> Coud [Computing] Alliance<http://samj.net/2009/03/on-open-cloud-manifest-private-cloud.html>just in the nick of time. I figured the shenanigans and tomfoolery were in
> the past and that we'd moved on but apparently not...
> So we held our first organisers' meeting a few weeks back hit the ground
> running with an agenda, venue, sponsors and a handful of registrations in an
> Eventbrite site <http://cloudcampparis.eventbrite.com/> that we set up. As
> we expect a mixed audience and bearing in mind we're in Central Europe
> rather than the US we went for a more formal structure than usual with a
> combination of set talks and an "unpanel". This apparently wasn't the
> CloudCamp approved format so the agenda was overhauled only to be rejected
> by the venue and restored to something more like what we started with. The
> Eventbrite site was also handed over without question to Dave Nielsen<http://www.platformd.com/>,
> who claimed it would be better on his account for cross-marketing purposes.
> That was fine until we wanted to offer sponsorship slots to a few specific
> registrants but were denied access to our own list on the basis of a
> "no-spam policy" (if we can't trust our own organisers then who can we
> trust, bearing in mind BarCamp lists are public<http://barcamp.org/educampparis>,
> albeit obfuscated). Needless to say my patience was already being tested
> because things I needed (documentation and a sponsorship kit) were absent
> while things I didn't (interference) were plentiful.
> Naturally cynical and somewhat unsettled by our brushes with the
> self-appointed CloudCamp committee <http://www.cloudcamp.com/?page_id=8>(which obnoxiously lists Reuven as "instigator" while failing to acknowledge
> any of the European contributors including Alexis Richardson, Chris
> Purrington and Simon Wardley who were equally critical to its' success, not
> to mention BarCamp <http://www.barcamp.org/> itself on which the whole
> thing is based) I took advantage of being at the Cloud Computing Expos in
> Prague and London to discuss candidly with some of the other European
> organisers. Sure enough I'm not the only one who's anxious about the future
> (of course the future of cloudcamp is looking bright<http://twitter.com/ruv/status/1595340210>when you know you own the thing!) and it seems there is some well-earned and
> deep-seated distrust going around. I'm also not the only one concerned about
> the hard work of the many potentially resulting in the unjust enrichment of
> the few and my attempts to convince Dave (in a 3 hour call no less) that
> everyone who's ever organised or even attended a CloudCamp event is both
> stakeholder and benefactor have thus far fallen on deaf ears. It's becoming
> increasingly clear to me that the view from above is that a small group of
> people I've previously referred to as the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers
> believe they "own" the community (more "pwn" than "own" if you ask me).
> Everyone I spoke to agreed that the best way forward would be to take care
> of registering the trademark (something that should have been done long ago
> anyway), to be handed over to a suitable non-profit organisation run by
> elected representative(s). This mail was drafted to announce the
> contribution, which should really have been the end of the story:
> *Afternoon all,
> As you know I've been active in protecting all things cloud computing w.r.t
> trademarks, for example:
> *
> - *discovering and ultimately scuttling Dell's "Cloud Computing"
> trademark<http://www.informationweek.com/news/hardware/grid_cluster/showArticle...>
> *
> - *exposing Psion's [ab]use of the "Netbook" trademark via Save the
> Netbooks <http://www.savethenetbooks.com/>
> *
> - *registering "Open Cloud" as a certification trademark and
> establishing the Open Cloud Initiative<http://www.opencloudinitiative.org/>
> *
> *I've just discovered the term CloudCamp is not protected and as one of a
> large and growing list of stakeholders (on which I include everyone from
> participants to organisers, sponsors and "instigators") I am concerned that
> we are unnecessarily (significantly) exposed. I bumped into Tom Leyden at
> the Cloud Computing Expo in Prague (who's organised a bunch more CloudCamps
> than I have) and he shares my concerns, as do a handful of other organisers
> I have spoken to.
> As such (given the significant lead times and expenses usually associated
> with trademark registration) I've taken the liberty of registering the
> trademark with the USPTO which I will gladly transfer to a 503(c)3
> non-profit, established to further the interests of cloud computing and run
> by elected officials. If we're not (eventually) reimbursed then Tom and I
> will cover the costs personally as a donation/sponsorship.
> Sam
> *
> The problem was when we did a worldwide search last week with a view to
> registering the trademark we found that Reuven Cohen<http://www.elasticvapor.com/>(with the help of Deeth
> Williams Wall <http://www.dww.com/> lawyers) had already done so in March
> in the name of his own company, Enomaly, Inc. <http://www.enomaly.com/>Even more curiously, when I raised the trademark issue on my recent call
> with Dave he knew nothing about it so either he's being taken for a ride
> along with the rest of us or he's telling fibs too. Naturally the excuse
> will be that this was done to protect the community while waiting for the
> formation of CloudCamp, Inc. but I don't buy it - the application curiously
> occurred contemporaneously with a brash attempt by a vendor to buy the whole
> lot and I don't believe for one second that this was a coincidence.
> I don't plan to dwell on this point (I don't have the time anyway) and my
> primary/only concern is the ongoing viability and stability of the community
> we have all contributed to in some way (even if just as a participant). The
> last thing I want to see is a for-profit company being formed and run by
> self-appointed dictators only to be sold to a vendor - such a thing would be
> the antithesis of BarCamp, on which the group is based and whatever is setup
> should be structured so as to make this impossible (e.g. a non-profit
> democracy).
> I'm not the first to accuse CloudCamp<http://silverguru.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/inaugural-post-controversy...>of jumping
> the shark <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark>, and we've seen
> it all before (right down to the silly puff pieces promoting individuals<http://www.infoworld.com/d/cloud-computing/dave-nielsen-takes-cloud-c...>and obnoxious "instigator" title) when MashupCamp
> jumped the shark<http://theryanking.com/entries/2006/02/23/mashupcamp-jumped-the-shark/>a few years back. However I believe it's not yet too late to avoid forking
> the community (and yes, if the organisers don't come to the party then
> everyone I've spoken to agrees there will be a fork) as I'm fairly sure they
> plan to announce the new regime they've been busy nutting out with their
> lawyers at the anniversary CloudCamp on 24 June 2009.
> As a starting point for the "Future of CloudCamp" here's a mail I wrote at
> the start of the month, only to have it moderated and deleted. Let's try to
> work out what we need from any central CloudCamp organisation (and indeed if
> we need one at all) and then take it from there:
> *---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Sam Johnston*
> Date: Mon, May 4, 2009 at 7:28 PM
> Subject: Future of CloudCamp
> To: cloudcamp@googlegroups.com
> Evening all,
> There was apparently <http://search.twitter.com/search?q=future+cloudcamp>a "future of cloudcamp" call with European organisers a few weeks back and
> putting aside the question as to why I and the other CloudCampParis
> organisers I've spoken to weren't invited, was someone planning to at least
> post some minutes to the list?
> So far as I am concerned CloudCamp is a good (albeit blatantly obvious)
> idea and is essentially a franchise shared between anyone who has
> contributed to its growth (from "instigators<http://www.cloudcamp.com/?page_id=8>"
> to organisers to sponsors to attendees). Those of you entangled in the CCIF
> goat rodeo will be acutely aware of my fervour for transparency and as such
> I don't like having to ask for it, but I know I'm not the only one who wants
> to see more of it.
> That in mind, by kicking off this thread I'm hoping we (the stakeholders of
> CloudCamp) can collaboratively and openly define the direction of the
> organisation. First thing's first (as I'm busy organising CloudCampParis as
> we speak) I'd like to get Dave some ideas as to how he can best assist local
> organisers. Here's some ideas to get the ball rolling:
> - *Sponsorship Kit to facilitate selling of sponsorships (maybe just a
> PDF and/or web page explaining why it's a good idea), probably offering a
> basic level (@ ~ $350/€250) including mentions on the event minisite, at the
> event, etc. and a more advanced level including a lightning talk. For bonus
> points offer a "bronze" level for cashed up attendees. Details TBD but you
> get the idea - makes it an easier sell.*
> - *Branding Kit with logos, colours, PDFs, etc. which local organisers
> can use to have some sort of consistency (even a PDF of a sign with an arrow
> on it saves time).
> *
> - *Global Sponsors who commit to pay a certain amount per event (say
> €100-500 or around €5-20k/annum) and who get a mention on the main site and
> at each event for it. Currently cloudcamp.com has a laundry list of
> sponsors including pretty much anyone who's ever had anything to do with
> cloud computing and their mothers - that makes it essentially worthless and
> difficult to sell... bronze/silver/gold/platinum sponsors would be a better
> idea.
> *
> - *Organisation to take money, issue invoices, etc. but only if it's a
> 503(c)(3) as it's too easy to take the piss with other forms and this has
> significant tax advantages (read: easier to sell sponsorships and everything
> is cheaper). Regional organisers should be organisation members and the
> direction should be set by them democratically. Among other things that
> would save people like me having to bother our accountants about collecting
> money on behalf of the organisation.
> *
> - *Support in terms of joining conference calls, mailing lists and even
> attending the events where possible/feasible. This is a two way street
> though so I guess local organisers should offer accommodation/entertainment/
> **etc. where possible to reduce costs.*
> - *Web Site optimised for creating and advertising individual events.
> This should probably be something like the Drupal CMS and organisers should
> be able to create and edit events without having to bother anyone else. It
> doesn't need to be fancy - a Wiki would probably do too (this works rather
> nicely for BarCamp). This is something I'd be more than happy to help out
> with, especially if we could get it in place quickly (in time for Paris).
> *
> *I'm sure there's plenty of other things we could do but the point is to
> get some sort of discussion underway and get people involved in the
> governance rather than provide an exhaustive list.
> Cheers,
> Sam*
